|
|
Post by avimimus on Mar 20, 2024 2:57:47 GMT -6
Hello,
I've tried to create a CVL with more than four floatplanes and catapults to act as a scout-ship, but I wasn't permitted. The same goes for conversions - so it seems the Ise, Tone-class, and Mogami are ruled out.
I also tried to create a flight-deck cruiser (similar to the American proposals from the 1930s) with a couple of forward centre-line turrets and a dozen aircraft for scouting and defense... it seems this is impossible too now (It had been possible in RTW2)?
Am I doing something wrong?
P.S. I know many people see these types of designs as silly - but I personally think such designs have some practical potential as raiders (i.e. enough firepower to defend against destroyers without needing a dedicated destroyer screen, and enough scouting ability to avoid larger warships).
|
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Mar 20, 2024 4:14:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by avimimus on Mar 20, 2024 18:14:03 GMT -6
Hmm... both the Italian and American designs had strait decks and centreline guns (albeit likely with some limits to elevation). I would love a setting that relax some restrictions. For example, it'd be nice to have up to one inch of armour on Destroyers - so I could reproduce the Branlebas class and the Fletchers, as well as partially protected destroyers like the Daring class (also, didn't Italy have an armoured destroyer class at one point?).
It'd also be nice to get 13in (-2) guns in casemate (albeit with a limit of only four main guns in that case), as a way to allow the Dévastation class central-battery capital ships (which remained on the register until 1909, and were in full service until at least 1902).
|
|
|
|
Post by tendravina on Mar 20, 2024 19:17:30 GMT -6
Hmm... both the Italian and American designs had strait decks and centreline guns (albeit likely with some limits to elevation). I would love a setting that relax some restrictions. For example, it'd be nice to have up to one inch of armour on Destroyers - so I could reproduce the Branlebas class and the Fletchers, as well as partially protected destroyers like the Daring class (also, didn't Italy have an armoured destroyer class at one point?). It'd also be nice to get 13in (-2) guns in casemate (albeit with a limit of only four main guns in that case), as a way to allow the Dévastation class central-battery capital ships (which remained on the register until 1909, and were in full service until at least 1902). As for Dévastation, you could probably get the same effect by placing 1, 2, 3, 4 single turrets tbh, although if they wanted to extend the game into the central battery ironclad idea that would be a pretty high priority. I wonder what those Italian and American designs looked like, they could be interesting |
|
|
|
Post by avimimus on Mar 20, 2024 19:40:12 GMT -6
Hmm... but there are rules against large wing mounted guns in the early game! Also, some of these central battery ships survived long enough to have more than a ten year overlap with the beginning of the game - so that is a rationale (Of course, I'd love it if the devs extended the game to the 1880s). As for those hybrid designs - the book 'Hybrid Warships' is a fascinating read... a lot of really bad ideas. Basically, you can have centre-line turrets so long as they aren't too large (or elevated). So, a battery of 4", 6" or even in some cases 8" guns should be quite feasible. Obvious downsides are that you need to produce an armoured carrier, you have a larger volume to armour, and shorter flight-deck... so it is a bad idea generally. The exception are a few of the cruiser designs - which could have been practical under some circumstances (mainly long range patrol or raiding). Some of the U.S. flight-deck cruiser designs can be seen here (both unangled and slightly angled flight decks): alternate-timelines.com/thread/3382/navy-flying-deck-cruiser-designThe Italian design I mentioned can be seen here: comandosupremo.com/development-of-italian-aircraft-carriers/ |
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Mar 21, 2024 2:33:21 GMT -6
As for those hybrid designs - the book 'Hybrid Warships' is a fascinating read... a lot of really bad ideas. Basically, you can have centre-line turrets so long as they aren't too large (or elevated). So, a battery of 4", 6" or even in some cases 8" guns should be quite feasible. Obvious downsides are that you need to produce an armoured carrier, you have a larger volume to armour, and shorter flight-deck... so it is a bad idea generally. The exception are a few of the cruiser designs - which could have been practical under some circumstances (mainly long range patrol or raiding). I found the ideas interesting and dabbled at times with thoughts of them. Some of the other downsides are: = Need to store large quantities of a highly flammable aviation gas = Need to transport and distribute that flammable gas to where the planes are = The need to sail in relation to the wind for launch (until catapults but still preferred) and recovery, thus limiting ship motion = for large floatplane carriers its not so much into the wind but still periods of limited maneuvering = Wind affects means the turrets and superstructure create turbulent winds over the flat landing/launching decks = Proportions of displacement needed for airplane related skilled technicians, parts, workshops, munitions not compatible with the existing ship systems That said: Into the cold war missile age where armor is dropping anyway I do see for this game and perhaps in real life more use for AV or CLAV type ships. Having 4 or more helicopters, not just one, is a jump in how to prosecute a submarine contact, drive off small boat pirates, do search and rescue, supply land operations, carry relief aid far inland and other missions where VTOL has options conventional planes don't. >>> Below is what I called a "Cruiser Light Patrol" for 1968, nearly the end of RtW3. In a way the helicopters and missiles make the hybrid cruiser a useful addition:   CLP 1968 LR ASW Patrol by b1laxson@yahoo.com forum Brygun CLP designation referring to cruiser light patrol though more specifically cruiser long range anti-submarine patrol. With growing submarine threats some nations are fielding very large submarine forces. The CLP design counters with advanced anti-submarine technology including an air wing of a several helicopters. Size, thus cost, is kept down, allowing moderate numbers to be built creating multiple chances by patrolling more seas. Operational doctrine is to group five CLP into a division, set them to trade protection duties then sail them where the area overview reports a large number of submarines. In the “Battle of the Atlantic” while many destroyers were escorting the convoys there were roaming hunter killer teams moveing between convoys and sighting reports. This new design shares this idea as shifting anti-submarine force. Construction in broad strokes is a light cruiser front with the aft as as a carrier with wide hanger with a tall interior and a flight deck roof. An elevator moves between the hanger and flight deck. Having dedicated helicopter workshops and stores makes them the beloved of nearby destroyers whose own facilities are far more limited. Air group sizing of four (4) promotes that on any given day multiple helicopters being available even if some are grounded. In persecuting a contact freshly rearmed helicopters can repeatedly relieve each other over and over. A truly frustrating situation for any submariner. Helicopters carried are anti-submarine or adaptable types. While specialized designs, like “Cobra” style gunships, could fit the need for specific maintainers, armorers, tooling and parts make it more appropriate to have formation CLP carry the general types. This then frees a larger aviation vessel to handle more of such specials. Ship borne ASW equipment includes a variety of sonars, bow fired ASW rockets and under water tubes for wire guided acoustic torpedoes. Minelaying equipment is typically used for laying a swath of area denial anti-submarine mines. Speed while suitable for cruising is starting to be outpaced by the newest submarines but none of them will out run the helicopters. A set of heavy anti-ship missiles keeps enemy warships “honest”. They are supplemented with auto-loading dual purpose 4 inch guns. This caliber balances flak generation with light armor penetration. Though lacking surface to air missiles a small scale attack may be thwarted by radar directed 40 mm anti-air, CIWS mountings and chaff launchers. These make it unlikely for missile submarine to easily sink the CLP unless it uses up a larger portion of its munitions meant for high value targets. The multiple launch trails would make it obvious to flying helicopters where to make their own counter attack. This deters such an attack from occurring in the first place. Armor is light by cruiser standards. The full length of the waterline is given armor plate against splinters and light weapons of non-state actors. Turrets and the conning tower are protected against destroyer grade guns and light missiles. Defenses against underwater explosions are present though limited by the ship’s affordable size. A single torpedo or mine strike should be survivable long enough to get to a friendly port. Colonial service loading of manpower and equipment includes translators, signals intelligence, a surgery suite, marine teams and prisoner cells. Special forces teams can be attached on a per mission basis. Newly invented RHIB speed boats provide an alternate means of movement to the helicopter’s excellent abilities in search, inspection, boarding, anti-piracy and logistics. The helicopters also make them attractive for amphibious operations and disaster relief. A division of five of these ships provide a surprising concentration of twenty helicopters. Depending on helicopter specifications that is a capacity of one to two hundred people per sortie. Studies considered the possibilities of larger sizes. Deck space was found to be the key limiting factor. Increasing from 4 to 5 helicopters would take an increase from 4,000 tons to 4,400. (RTW3 gave no ASW increases for the extra helicopters). Adding a pair of light SAM rails would take a tonnage of 5,600 with the original 4 helicopters. 2 of LSAM and 5 helicopters 6,300 tons or to 6 helicopters at 6,900 tons. If instead 2 of MSAM rails were added to the four helicopters a tonnage of nearly double of 7,700 tons was needed with just the base 4 helicopters. In summary to the review bureau is the use of these light patrol cruisers for strategic anti-submarine hunter-killer squadrons. They are also for efficient foreign service or augmenting larger formations. This design also shows the possibilities at the far high end of technologies compared to the 1890s. For the proposed role the 4,000 ton is the most economical with the 2 LSAM 5,600 ton as an alternate. |
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Apr 2, 2024 15:34:10 GMT -6
It'd also be nice to get 13in (-2) guns in casemate (albeit with a limit of only four main guns in that case), as a way to allow the Dévastation class central-battery capital ships (which remained on the register until 1909, and were in full service until at least 1902).[/quote]
I've managed to create some passable mimics of the historical central battery types by brute force edits, but I agree it would be nice in the 1890 stuff was at least a bit closer to reality! Having to wait years for "Destroyers" (i.e. "Torpedo Boat Destroyers") in a world oddly bereft of any other small Torpedo craft for them to need to Destroy is surreal... I've created a somewhat acceptable 1890 RN fleet, after an inordinate amount of wrangling (due to the pointless block on players designing more appropriate fleets in any but the 1900 start) with Jan1890 save games, and did initially imagine doing similar for the other navies but I simply couldn't face the the time and effort that would involve (and I'd previously done the same in RTW2 so I do generally have the patience for such business)...
Sadly, though many features of RTW3 are distinct and interesting improvements on it's precursor, it's flaws, especially around it's treatment of the 1890 start (and the impact that has on the pre-dreadnought game in general) have rather broken the game for me. I may return to it one day, but...
|
|
|
|
Post by tendravina on Apr 2, 2024 23:31:02 GMT -6
It'd also be nice to get 13in (-2) guns in casemate (albeit with a limit of only four main guns in that case), as a way to allow the Dévastation class central-battery capital ships (which remained on the register until 1909, and were in full service until at least 1902). I've managed to create some passable mimics of the historical central battery types by brute force edits, but I agree it would be nice in the 1890 stuff was at least a bit closer to reality! Having to wait years for "Destroyers" (i.e. "Torpedo Boat Destroyers") in a world oddly bereft of any other small Torpedo craft for them to need to Destroy is surreal... I've created a somewhat acceptable 1890 RN fleet, after an inordinate amount of wrangling (due to the pointless block on players designing more appropriate fleets in any but the 1900 start) with Jan1890 save games, and did initially imagine doing similar for the other navies but I simply couldn't face the the time and effort that would involve (and I'd previously done the same in RTW2 so I do generally have the patience for such business)... Sadly, though many features of RTW3 are distinct and interesting improvements on it's precursor, it's flaws, especially around it's treatment of the 1890 start (and the impact that has on the pre-dreadnought game in general) have rather broken the game for me. I may return to it one day, but... What's the worst thing about the 1890 start? It doesn't seem the worst tbh |
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Apr 3, 2024 3:04:31 GMT -6
It'd also be nice to get 13in (-2) guns in casemate (albeit with a limit of only four main guns in that case), as a way to allow the Dévastation class central-battery capital ships (which remained on the register until 1909, and were in full service until at least 1902). I've managed to create some passable mimics of the historical central battery types by brute force edits, but I agree it would be nice in the 1890 stuff was at least a bit closer to reality! Having to wait years for "Destroyers" (i.e. "Torpedo Boat Destroyers") in a world oddly bereft of any other small Torpedo craft for them to need to Destroy is surreal... I've created a somewhat acceptable 1890 RN fleet, after an inordinate amount of wrangling (due to the pointless block on players designing more appropriate fleets in any but the 1900 start) with Jan1890 save games, and did initially imagine doing similar for the other navies but I simply couldn't face the the time and effort that would involve (and I'd previously done the same in RTW2 so I do generally have the patience for such business)... Sadly, though many features of RTW3 are distinct and interesting improvements on it's precursor, it's flaws, especially around it's treatment of the 1890 start (and the impact that has on the pre-dreadnought game in general) have rather broken the game for me. I may return to it one day, but... What's the worst thing about the 1890 start? It doesn't seem the worst tbh It's the navies... They don't look much like the actual fleets in 1890. There's no torpedo craft (in what should be the height of the Jeune Ecole era!), a few designs of battleships of the latest type (so no one has a collection of obsolete ironclads... The French Redoubtable was mentioned earlier in this thread but most navies should have Central battery and Broadside ironclads making up the bulk of their existing battlelines in 1890. Barbette ships are starting to turn up in a variety of odd layouts and some navies liked old style turrets... Adm. Hood, looking at you here!) but masses of very fast (for the time, there's actually a bare handful of 20+knot types in service even by the end of the year!) cruisers that should not be present until the middle of the decade! The game page lists "Conway's" for 1860-1905 as a source but they clearly didn't read it! Almost worse still, because they have stretched the early game "Eras" for the ship designs (the collections of pre loaded designs that are available for any non-player navies to select from) to fit in the 1890 start they're losing stages through the pre-Dreadnought era so the 1900 start no longer has space to display a distinct "Semi-Dreadnought" period and that start include anachronistic designs too! (It's not as egregious as the 1890 debacle, at least there's torpedo craft and the fast cruiser swarms aren't so out of place...) Historical the early game is a mess! (And I've never thought the games treatment of air power, shoe-horned into what is really a WW1 game, was very satisfactory... Really, by the 1940s at least, naval ops close to major land opponents should be hugely constrained until the enemy air has been massively suppressed! Less fun for a naval gamer perhaps but that's the reality) |
|
|
|
Post by TheOtherPoster on Apr 3, 2024 5:29:51 GMT -6
I think the idea was to make the 1890 more an alternative way to form the 1900 fleets than a real start.
The main problem is that armour is far too good for the time. The best armour available in 1890 was the very rubbish compound and most of the ships from the legacy fleet, built in the 1880s at best, would actually use wrought iron which was even worse. So protection needed to be very thick and hence heavy: that’s why we see those narrow very think belts that, to save weight (and cost) made the naval engineers at the time to design ships with low freeboard, short range, few secondary guns (QF secondary guns were not introduced until late 1880s in the RN and for most navies sometime in the 1890s). As in RTW3 armour is much better than historically, if we were allowed to build our legacy fleets we would design our ships as in 1900: no narrow thick belts, more secondary guns, no low freeboard, no short range battleships… because unlike the real naval engineers at the time, we can. We do not need to build our battleships with those very thick belts in RTW3. And so the youtubers playing the 1890 start, don’t: it's not just that they design battleships with two twin turrets in A and Y positions: they also build them with normal belts because battleships do not need so thick thick belts and hence with normal freeboard, medium range etc. Given these fundamental design shortcomings in the 1890 start, we have to accept that to make it more or less work, the AI must be the only one building all legacy fleets.
In my opinion a big drawback particularly in the 1890 start is that the same designs are used for the legacy fleet (built in the 1880s) and for new designs up to 1897! And so the AI may keep on building inferior odd-looking 1880s designs well into the late 1890s. Also, I think this may be the reason why we get those very fast cruisers sometimes already in our legacy fleets: because those are the same designs the AI will be making for many years.
Regarding TBs, of course we cannot build 25 or 50t ships in RTW. It was suggested long ago maybe to build them as we later build MTB squadrons, but so far nothing has come out of it I believe.
|
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Apr 3, 2024 7:11:22 GMT -6
I think the idea was to make the 1890 more an alternative way to form the 1900 fleets than a real start. If they'd fixed the techs and armour strengths properly then that might have worked... of course they'd have had to design appropiriate start and early 1890 designs but they appear to have been overly fixated on the later, post WW2 style stuff.
The main problem is that armour is far too good for the time. The best armour available in 1890 was the very rubbish compound and most of the ships from the legacy fleet, built in the 1880s at best, would actually use wrought iron which was even worse. So protection needed to be very thick and hence heavy: that’s why we see those narrow very think belts that, to save weight (and cost) made the naval engineers at the time to design ships with low freeboard, short range, few secondary guns (QF secondary guns were not introduced until late 1880s in the RN and for most navies sometime in the 1890s). As in RTW3 armour is much better than historically, if we were allowed to build our legacy fleets we would design our ships as in 1900: no narrow belts, not so thick belts, more secondary guns, no low freeboard, no short range battleships… because unlike the real naval engineers at the time, we do not need to build our battleships with those very thick belts in RTW3. And so the youtubers playing the 1890 start, don’t: they all design their new ships as if they were in 1900, without narrow belts or any other constrain. Given these fundamental design shortcomings, the AI is the only one allowed to build all legacy fleets in 1890, the ships mimicking some old designs with thick belts etc although those belts don't need in the game to be so thick and heavy. It's nowhere perfect but I've learned to live with it (more or less...) Indeed, almost as if they should have fixed their game better?In my opinion a big drawback particularly in the 1890 start is that the same designs are used for the legacy fleet (built in the 1880s) and for new designs up to 1897! And so the AI may keep on building inferior odd-looking 1880s designs well into the late 1890s. Also, I think this may be the reason why we get those very fast cruisers sometimes already in our legacy fleets: because those are the same designs the AI will be making for many years. Making the early game IDEs cover such a long time period has broken the early game badly. There is no real attempt to produce historically believable design progression over the early period, a shame as the first two decades cover a time of incredible technical change...in surface ship terms actually more than any comparable later period to be honest...Regarding TBs, of course we cannot build 25 or 50t ships in RTW. It was suggested long ago maybe to build them as we later build MTB squadrons, but so far nothing has come out of it I believe. Again, almost like they made a bunch of bad/lazy choices but then just shrugged?
If they'd just added the game play changes to the base of RTW2 they'd have made something rather more usable IMHO.
|
|
|
|
Post by tendravina on Apr 3, 2024 9:28:42 GMT -6
I think the idea was to make the 1890 more an alternative way to form the 1900 fleets than a real start. If they'd fixed the techs and armour strengths properly then that might have worked... of course they'd have had to design appropiriate start and early 1890 designs but they appear to have been overly fixated on the later, post WW2 style stuff.
The main problem is that armour is far too good for the time. The best armour available in 1890 was the very rubbish compound and most of the ships from the legacy fleet, built in the 1880s at best, would actually use wrought iron which was even worse. So protection needed to be very thick and hence heavy: that’s why we see those narrow very think belts that, to save weight (and cost) made the naval engineers at the time to design ships with low freeboard, short range, few secondary guns (QF secondary guns were not introduced until late 1880s in the RN and for most navies sometime in the 1890s). As in RTW3 armour is much better than historically, if we were allowed to build our legacy fleets we would design our ships as in 1900: no narrow belts, not so thick belts, more secondary guns, no low freeboard, no short range battleships… because unlike the real naval engineers at the time, we do not need to build our battleships with those very thick belts in RTW3. And so the youtubers playing the 1890 start, don’t: they all design their new ships as if they were in 1900, without narrow belts or any other constrain. Given these fundamental design shortcomings, the AI is the only one allowed to build all legacy fleets in 1890, the ships mimicking some old designs with thick belts etc although those belts don't need in the game to be so thick and heavy. It's nowhere perfect but I've learned to live with it (more or less...) Indeed, almost as if they should have fixed their game better?In my opinion a big drawback particularly in the 1890 start is that the same designs are used for the legacy fleet (built in the 1880s) and for new designs up to 1897! And so the AI may keep on building inferior odd-looking 1880s designs well into the late 1890s. Also, I think this may be the reason why we get those very fast cruisers sometimes already in our legacy fleets: because those are the same designs the AI will be making for many years. Making the early game IDEs cover such a long time period has broken the early game badly. There is no real attempt to produce historically believable design progression over the early period, a shame as the first two decades cover a time of incredible technical change...in surface ship terms actually more than any comparable later period to be honest...Regarding TBs, of course we cannot build 25 or 50t ships in RTW. It was suggested long ago maybe to build them as we later build MTB squadrons, but so far nothing has come out of it I believe. Again, almost like they made a bunch of bad/lazy choices but then just shrugged?
If they'd just added the game play changes to the base of RTW2 they'd have made something rather more usable IMHO.
So let's start out by covering the most baffling decisions. We've already started seeing 200 ton torpedo boats in this era, so the "Destroyers" tech could probably be unlocked earlier. And the armor is absolutely baffling as well, armor thickness is not even the worst part. Rather, it is having belt and deck extended worth so much, players on the discord are actively saying they'd have more belt extended than belt if they could. However, the devs are working with ancient, decades-old legacy code, which makes some corrections difficult or even impossible. For example, building various central battery ships will put you thousands of tons overweight because the game doesn't properly account for gun mounting weights or how that changes with gun length. It is, of course, not an option in the current game as well, as you'd either have to armor your whole BU (belt upper) or each individual casemate. There is also a caveat for the smaller, 25-100 ton torpedo boats, as the game never modeled them well no matter the era. MTBs in the later stages barely have an effect, basically acting as not even port guards, but essentially watch posts, when in reality they would have had a far more active and offensive role targeting things like ports. Which are also not modeled accurately as it turns out. But most of these are decisions made years or even decades ago that require a complete rewrite of the game to fix, but instead with their tiny and ancient dev team they've only been able to put out incremental changes. It isn't the result of "oh I just wanted to screw up", at least most of the time. There are games that make a lot more truly baffling decisions |
|
|
|
Post by cormallen on Apr 4, 2024 2:19:10 GMT -6
So let's start out by covering the most baffling decisions. We've already started seeing 200 ton torpedo boats in this era, so the "Destroyers" tech could probably be unlocked earlier. And the armor is absolutely baffling as well, armor thickness is not even the worst part. Rather, it is having belt and deck extended worth so much, players on the discord are actively saying they'd have more belt extended than belt if they could. I think a combination of an improved version of the "MBT squadrons" (reflecting the smaller TBs acting as coast defence units) idea plus limited numbers of, admittedly rather oversized historically, 200 ton craft reflecting their potential for offensive use could appear to funtionally mimic the Jeune Ecole's ambitions. Plus allowing KE sized ships to carry TTs to reflect the large numbers of "Torpedo Gunboats/Cruisers" that are commonplace throughout the decade? Players could, of course, abuse the hell out of this but then it's such an easily hackable game that they already can if that's their bag!
The overly strong early armours, and their absurd impacts on the tactical balance of Cruisers vs Battleships, needs fixing badly. I'd just reduced the battleship armouring dramatically in the older RN designs I was playing around with last year but it's a far from ideal solution and I'm not sure what the AI will do with it's builds at all? However, the devs are working with ancient, decades-old legacy code, which makes some corrections difficult or even impossible. For example, building various central battery ships will put you thousands of tons overweight because the game doesn't properly account for gun mounting weights or how that changes with gun length. It is, of course, not an option in the current game as well, as you'd either have to armor your whole BU (belt upper) or each individual casemate. Artificially reducing armour to reflect the relative effectiveness of Iron etc actually made the old designs, sort of, achievable as their armour weight was reduced. I had to brute force edit the designs to get the game to allow layouts a lot and often to sneak past the artificial design parameters. I did wonder how they were going to cope with the 1890 designs when they announced they were adding that as a start date to RTW3, as it's very different from the decade of the Dreadnought, but the approach seems to have been "just add more years of pre-Dreadnoughts!"There is also a caveat for the smaller, 25-100 ton torpedo boats, as the game never modeled them well no matter the era. MTBs in the later stages barely have an effect, basically acting as not even port guards, but essentially watch posts, when in reality they would have had a far more active and offensive role targeting things like ports. Which are also not modeled accurately as it turns out. But most of these are decisions made years or even decades ago that require a complete rewrite of the game to fix, but instead with their tiny and ancient dev team they've only been able to put out incremental changes. Thus my suggestion that attempting the 1890 start was a can of worms best left unopened! I absolutely appreciate the difficulties they faced operating with such a small team (it's almost as if they should have approached the fairly active RTW2 modding peeps for an assist, especially with ship designs!) but the choices they made are theirs and the unfortunate consequences likewise on them. The changes to the command and control layers are really good and the new graphics splendid. It's such a shame that their unnecessary overreach renders the whole thing rather duff now!It isn't the result of "oh I just wanted to screw up", at least most of the time. There are games that make a lot more truly baffling decisions |
|
|
|
Post by williammiller on Apr 9, 2024 8:59:44 GMT -6
"with their tiny and ancient dev team"...thats odd...I don't *feel* ancient :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by brygun on Apr 9, 2024 15:30:31 GMT -6
|
|
